From what i understand Pearl Harbor had 3 investigations. Why shouldn't there be another for 9/11? Some say it would be a waste of money. We waste so much money on the dumbest things. This wouldn't be so dumb.

I have stated many times. A missile didn't hit the pentagon nor was the WTC's wired with explosives. The evidence doesn't add up. Not even close. However, there are blaring issues with our intelligence agencies and with the Saudi's. Something another investigation would shed light on. My belief is, (and its only a belief) that another investigation would uncover serious incompetence on our part.

From what i understand Pearl Harbor had 3 investigations. Why shouldn't there be another for 9/11? Some say it would be a waste of money. We waste so much money on the dumbest things. This wouldn't be so dumb.

I have stated many times. A missile didn't hit the pentagon nor was the WTC's wired with explosives. The evidence doesn't add up. Not even close. However, there are blaring issues with our intelligence agencies and with the Saudi's. Something another investigation would shed light on. My belief is, (and its only a belief) that another investigation would uncover serious incompetence on our part.

There is already more than enough evidence to show gross dereliction of duty. So that's the route to take toward a meaningful investigation. Focusing on the chain of command that day would answer all the basic questions as to whether this was allowed to happen. That would be step one.

If sufficient evidence were to support the idea that certain military leaders deliberately stood down, freezing our defenses, it would open the floodgates toward exploring the "made to happen" angle, including the possible use of explosives as supplementation.

As for the explosives idea itself, there are very solid reports made by many credible people that there were in fact explosions shortly before the planes hit. No matter how this particular aspect were to play out in the end, it is very compelling evidence that would carry tremendous weight in any courtroom, period.

As to the Pentagon attack, the thought of a missile hitting it rather than a plane doesn't make sense for obvious reasons, but a missile in addition to a plane would actually correlate with the supplementation theory of the WTC.

Again, none of these last questions could be answered until step one is accomplished and the floodgates were opened. And I haven't yet heard any argument as to why step one couldn't be accomplished.

OzmO, if you're seriously interested in this, here's what I'd suggest you do. Wait until you have an hour or so to spend browsing, and search the phrase "explosions before plane hit" (without the quotation marks " "). There is evidence from all sources to support this. Many of these are news reports that took place in the short time after the attacks started.

OzmO, if you're seriously interested in this, here's what I'd suggest you do. Wait until you have an hour or so to spend browsing, and search the phrase "explosions before plane hit" (without the quotation marks " "). There is evidence from all sources to support this. Many of these are news reports that took place in the short time after the attacks started.

If you're suggesting that a person could somehow mistake the obvious sensation of an explosion with something else, I'd say that you've never been near an explosion.

What i am suggesting is that witness testimony in large traumatic events is usually inconsistent. For example during the JFK assassination according to the HSCA study of 178 witnesses, 132 (74.2%) heard three shots, 6 (3.3%) heard 4 shots.

How many in the WTC's heard explosions before and how many after impact?

If there were explosives wired in there should be other evidence otherwise we are making a conclusion based solely on witness testimony, something that would only be good as basic supporting evidence (hearing explosions before impact), not incriminating evidence.

I meant to ask for your opionion on the length of time it took to produce a shootdown order, OzmO. What are your thoughts on this?

If i remember my research correctly from a few years ago, there were only 14 jets on the hot pad along the entire eastern seaboard. The small number was mainly because of the end of the cold war. Everything the air force had prepared for (protocols, radar warning, availability of forces etc.) was an attack from outside the USA, not from with in. To get the jets up there, vector them to where the planes where, who had turned off there transponders, find them, positively identify them, among many other jets flying around and know one was aiming to hit the second WTC, and get the order to definitively shot down a passenger plane used by a terrorist as a weapon was too much to do in such little time.

Before we go any further, let's not forget that step one is to determine whether there was a dereliction of duty or worse in the form of deliberate inaction, because that would be the platform needed to build on. So we're getting ahead of ourselves here, but...

What i am suggesting is that witness testimony in large traumatic events is usually inconsistent. For example during the JFK assassination according to the HSCA study of 178 witnesses, 132 (74.2%) heard three shots, 6 (3.3%) heard 4 shots.

How many in the WTC's heard explosions before and how many after impact?

If there were explosives wired in there should be other evidence otherwise we are making a conclusion based solely on witness testimony, something that would only be good as basic supporting evidence (hearing explosions before impact), not incriminating evidence.

You will find substantial evidence to say there was in fact severe damage in the lower levels of the building, including entire sections turned into concrete rubble, reported by long time employees--including WTC engineers who knew the environment better than anyone else. This evidence couldn't possibly lend any greater support to the theory.

By the way, I appreciate what you're saying about witness testimony. People have actually been wrongfully convicted based on false witness testimony. When a person is trying to describe levels of detail, such as a number of shots or precise facial features, it can sometimes become inaccurate.

A cover statement, such as seeing an entire concrete wall you are familiar with, down in the form of rubble, can be a sufficiently descriptive statement that won't require fine detailing.

If i remember my research correctly from a few years ago, there were only 14 jets on the hot pad along the entire eastern seaboard. The small number was mainly because of the end of the cold war. Everything the air force had prepared for (protocols, radar warning, availability of forces etc.) was an attack from outside the USA, not from with in. To get the jets up there, vector them to where the planes where, who had turned off there transponders, find them, positively identify them, among many other jets flying around and know one was aiming to hit the second WTC, and get the order to definitively shot down a passenger plane used by a terrorist as a weapon was too much to do in such little time.

Bro, you are giving a possible explanation as to why the South Tower wasn't saved. It simply doesn't explain the Pentagon attack, which happened one hour and twenty minutes after the first plane had been confirmed as a hijack.

Jack, plz just list it or provide a link to exactly what you are talking about regarding these witnesses. Especially the WTC employee. I've spent plenty of time (hours and hours and hours) researching 9/11. I am not really that motivated ATM to search through tons of sites to find the testimony of this employee. So i would appreciate it if you had a link. (BTW i was a few years ago when i was really into this, just not much now)

But don't get me wrong, if its good enough (this guy's testimony) i will start looking deeper. Like for instance, who else was working there and what do they have to say? Are there conflicting testimonies? etc.

I suspected dereliction of duty at the beginning, not really going on any solid evidence. The problem is, unless someone comes forward i don't think we will ever gather enough evidence to prove BUSH and Co. let it happen even with another investigation. Even if we did, Oliver North said it best: "I do not recall"

Bro, you are giving a possible explanation as to why the South Tower wasn't saved. It simply doesn't explain the Pentagon attack, which happened one hour and twenty minutes after the first plane had been confirmed as a hijack.

Yeah, but you have to remember we are looking at this in retrospect. It's pretty easy to see things clearly. However, in the fog of that morning getting the order to shoot down a Russian backfire bomber would have been very easy considering it was spotted on radar coming into the USA, but to make a determination to shoot down a passenger jet originating for an airport "In" the USA is something altogether different. There were still tons of planes flying around, we didn't have an AWACS flying up there identifying each plane, every target except for 1 was friendly and it wasn't for sure what that one was doing etc.

Jack, plz just list it or provide a link to exactly what you are talking about regarding these witnesses. Especially the WTC employee. I've spent plenty of time (hours and hours and hours) researching 9/11. I am not really that motivated ATM to search through tons of sites to find the testimony of this employee. So i would appreciate it if you had a link. (BTW i was a few years ago when i was really into this, just not much now)

But don't get me wrong, if its good enough (this guy's testimony) i will start looking deeper. Like for instance, who else was working there and what do they have to say? Are there conflicting testimonies? etc.

Yeah, I can understand what you're saying about the lack of motivation, probably for me because it meets so much blind resistance from most people despite being the case that it is. It was a thread here on getbig that caused me to get into it this far, but I understand the limits.

As far as the research part of it, I don't go by any single website. I go by the particular piece of information as it is examined across as many sites and as many documents as possible. It allows "both sides" to become more apparent and should give a truer picture in the end. It has also shown me deliberate misinformation that has been posted to help one "side" or the other.

I suspected dereliction of duty at the beginning, not really going on any solid evidence. The problem is, unless someone comes forward i don't think we will ever gather enough evidence to prove BUSH and Co. let it happen even with another investigation. Even if we did, Oliver North said it best: "I do not recall"

A person can remain silent or claim an inability to recall, but if there's enough reason to believe things happened a certain way, a conviction should take place anyway, no matter what the case or who the person. If we citizens have to abide by this, so should the elite. That's something everyone at least pretends to agree upon.

As far as Bush himself, I think he's just what he seems to be. Rumsfeld, however, has some serious answers to give. His explanation that he was "unaware" of what was happening is not only unacceptable and suspect, it is outrageous.

Yeah, but you have to remember we are looking at this in retrospect. It's pretty easy to see things clearly. However, in the fog of that morning getting the order to shoot down a Russian backfire bomber would have been very easy considering it was spotted on radar coming into the USA, but to make a determination to shoot down a passenger jet originating for an airport "In" the USA is something altogether different. There were still tons of planes flying around, we didn't have an AWACS flying up there identifying each plane, every target except for 1 was friendly and it wasn't for sure what that one was doing etc.

At this point, two hijacked planes had been deliberately flown into buildings, causing horrific disaster. Why would they think another hijacked plane was any different?